However, just to play devil's advocate to myself: one thing I will say is that, while Hillary is a VERY weak frontrunner, she is also formidable when she's the underdog.
While the election is very likely to get tighter, what will make her tough to beat is that a situation where she goes behind in the polls and is getting a heavy barrage of attacks could itself boost her campaign. In the 2008 primaries, whenever she was on the verge of getting knocked out, she really stepped up her performances on the campaign trail and became the "never-say-die underdog who refuses to quit no matter what the haters say". And whenever that happened, voters (especially women) warmed to her a lot more, or atleast respected and admired her more. A similar thing could happen this time if the election gets very tight, especially if Trump goes overboard with his personal attacks on her.
Sanders is doing both her and the Democratic party serious damage now. She really needs the nomination process to stop and refocus her team in the same way as Trump will be doing.
McCain wrapped up the GOP nomination in 2008 in March, Obama only beat Hillary in June, it did not do him much harm in November. As long as Sanders wins primaries he has every right to continue, it would do more harm if he was seen to be pushed out
Don't agree. The correct test came from Cruz (of all people). Does Sanders have a viable path to victory? If yes, go for it. If not, times up.
Cruz lost Indiana and correctly bowed out, Sanders won Indiana on the same night and had every right to continue!
'Thirty gay MPs and peers today weighed into the EU referendum battle with a call to the lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender and intersex community to unite behind the Remain banner.
In a letter to the Evening Standard marking International Day Against Homophobia, they hailed the EU’s role in promoting human rights worldwide and claimed that it would all be put at risk by a Brexit.
Given that large parts of the EU do not accept Gay marriage (it is only legal in 10 countries including the UK) and that the ECHR rejected a claim that Gay Marriage was a right, I fail to see how the EU can be claimed as some sort of leading light for Gay rights. It strikes me that the UK is rather more advanced on that particular issue than much of the EU.
A large chunk of the Conservative party doesn't accept gay marriage.
That doesn't change the legal status of it, and I can't see it being changed in the future.
UK politicians are fools to condemn one of the leading contenders for the US Presidency whatever they might think of him privately how are they going to deal with Trump if the GOP candidate wins? Of course Cameron will be gone anyway if he loses the EU referendum, so might avoid the problem but Sadiq Khan, newly elected mayor of arguably the worlds most powerful city could be wishing he'd kept his gob shut.
Farage endorsed Trump though on Sunday
Doesn't matter much, I don't suppose UKIP MEPs get many invitations to the White House and anyway endorsing their opponent can easily be forgiven.
'Thirty gay MPs and peers today weighed into the EU referendum battle with a call to the lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender and intersex community to unite behind the Remain banner.
In a letter to the Evening Standard marking International Day Against Homophobia, they hailed the EU’s role in promoting human rights worldwide and claimed that it would all be put at risk by a Brexit.
Given that large parts of the EU do not accept Gay marriage (it is only legal in 10 countries including the UK) and that the ECHR rejected a claim that Gay Marriage was a right, I fail to see how the EU can be claimed as some sort of leading light for Gay rights. It strikes me that the UK is rather more advanced on that particular issue than much of the EU.
“This year the EU hopes to secure agreement on the advancement of LGBTI equality covering education, employment, health and asylum across all 28 member states. "Why would we risk all of this by leaving the EU?”
Lord Cashman said: “We must use our influence to promote LGBTI rights across Europe... The United Kingdom is best placed to do this as part of the EU." Apparently
I think this this sort of thing is.one of the key reasons why a large chunk of people will vote exit and why progressives are aghast at the prospect of Brexit.
With the progressive majority in the UK being an illusion caused by lack of realistic choice until UKIP turned up (Tory + UKIP still > than 50%) many remainers fesr brexit for this reason far more than any economic reason. It is also why the campaign is so fake as no one dares mention this (except Hattie)
'Thirty gay MPs and peers today weighed into the EU referendum battle with a call to the lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender and intersex community to unite behind the Remain banner.
In a letter to the Evening Standard marking International Day Against Homophobia, they hailed the EU’s role in promoting human rights worldwide and claimed that it would all be put at risk by a Brexit.
Given that large parts of the EU do not accept Gay marriage (it is only legal in 10 countries including the UK) and that the ECHR rejected a claim that Gay Marriage was a right, I fail to see how the EU can be claimed as some sort of leading light for Gay rights. It strikes me that the UK is rather more advanced on that particular issue than much of the EU.
“This year the EU hopes to secure agreement on the advancement of LGBTI equality covering education, employment, health and asylum across all 28 member states. "Why would we risk all of this by leaving the EU?”
Lord Cashman said: “We must use our influence to promote LGBTI rights across Europe... The United Kingdom is best placed to do this as part of the EU." Apparently
Gay marriage, like abortion, is precisely the sort of issue that must be decided at national, not supranational, level.
'Thirty gay MPs and peers today weighed into the EU referendum battle with a call to the lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender and intersex community to unite behind the Remain banner.
In a letter to the Evening Standard marking International Day Against Homophobia, they hailed the EU’s role in promoting human rights worldwide and claimed that it would all be put at risk by a Brexit.
Given that large parts of the EU do not accept Gay marriage (it is only legal in 10 countries including the UK) and that the ECHR rejected a claim that Gay Marriage was a right, I fail to see how the EU can be claimed as some sort of leading light for Gay rights. It strikes me that the UK is rather more advanced on that particular issue than much of the EU.
“This year the EU hopes to secure agreement on the advancement of LGBTI equality covering education, employment, health and asylum across all 28 member states. "Why would we risk all of this by leaving the EU?”
Lord Cashman said: “We must use our influence to promote LGBTI rights across Europe... The United Kingdom is best placed to do this as part of the EU." Apparently
Maybe that's how Cameron's war will start? Frustrated at our lack of influence in the EU over this issue, we go to war to enforce our demands.
'Thirty gay MPs and peers today weighed into the EU referendum battle with a call to the lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender and intersex community to unite behind the Remain banner.
In a letter to the Evening Standard marking International Day Against Homophobia, they hailed the EU’s role in promoting human rights worldwide and claimed that it would all be put at risk by a Brexit.
Given that large parts of the EU do not accept Gay marriage (it is only legal in 10 countries including the UK) and that the ECHR rejected a claim that Gay Marriage was a right, I fail to see how the EU can be claimed as some sort of leading light for Gay rights. It strikes me that the UK is rather more advanced on that particular issue than much of the EU.
“This year the EU hopes to secure agreement on the advancement of LGBTI equality covering education, employment, health and asylum across all 28 member states. "Why would we risk all of this by leaving the EU?”
Lord Cashman said: “We must use our influence to promote LGBTI rights across Europe... The United Kingdom is best placed to do this as part of the EU." Apparently
Gay marriage, like abortion, is precisely the sort of issue that must be decided at national, not supranational, level.
Mind you the US Supreme Court imposed it at the Federal level
'Thirty gay MPs and peers today weighed into the EU referendum battle with a call to the lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender and intersex community to unite behind the Remain banner.
In a letter to the Evening Standard marking International Day Against Homophobia, they hailed the EU’s role in promoting human rights worldwide and claimed that it would all be put at risk by a Brexit.
Given that large parts of the EU do not accept Gay marriage (it is only legal in 10 countries including the UK) and that the ECHR rejected a claim that Gay Marriage was a right, I fail to see how the EU can be claimed as some sort of leading light for Gay rights. It strikes me that the UK is rather more advanced on that particular issue than much of the EU.
“This year the EU hopes to secure agreement on the advancement of LGBTI equality covering education, employment, health and asylum across all 28 member states. "Why would we risk all of this by leaving the EU?”
Lord Cashman said: “We must use our influence to promote LGBTI rights across Europe... The United Kingdom is best placed to do this as part of the EU." Apparently
I think this this sort of thing is.one of the key reasons why a large chunk of people will vote exit and why progressives are aghast at the prospect of Brexit.
With the progressive majority in the UK being an illusion caused by lack of realistic choice until UKIP turned up (Tory + UKIP still > than 50%) many remainers fesr brexit for this reason far more than any economic reason. It is also why the campaign is so fake as no one dares mention this (except Hattie)
Mind you many Tories support gay marriage, UKIP includes some more socially conservative old Labour voters
UK politicians are fools to condemn one of the leading contenders for the US Presidency whatever they might think of him privately how are they going to deal with Trump if the GOP candidate wins? Of course Cameron will be gone anyway if he loses the EU referendum, so might avoid the problem but Sadiq Khan, newly elected mayor of arguably the worlds most powerful city could be wishing he'd kept his gob shut.
Farage endorsed Trump though on Sunday
Doesn't matter much, I don't suppose UKIP MEPs get many invitations to the White House and anyway endorsing their opponent can easily be forgiven.
He is the leader of the third largest party in the country by votes, it is a not insignificant endorsement and the only one to come from any of the party leaders
'Thirty gay MPs and peers today weighed into the EU referendum battle with a call to the lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender and intersex community to unite behind the Remain banner.
In a letter to the Evening Standard marking International Day Against Homophobia, they hailed the EU’s role in promoting human rights worldwide and claimed that it would all be put at risk by a Brexit.
Given that large parts of the EU do not accept Gay marriage (it is only legal in 10 countries including the UK) and that the ECHR rejected a claim that Gay Marriage was a right, I fail to see how the EU can be claimed as some sort of leading light for Gay rights. It strikes me that the UK is rather more advanced on that particular issue than much of the EU.
“This year the EU hopes to secure agreement on the advancement of LGBTI equality covering education, employment, health and asylum across all 28 member states. "Why would we risk all of this by leaving the EU?”
Lord Cashman said: “We must use our influence to promote LGBTI rights across Europe... The United Kingdom is best placed to do this as part of the EU." Apparently
I think this this sort of thing is.one of the key reasons why a large chunk of people will vote exit and why progressives are aghast at the prospect of Brexit.
With the progressive majority in the UK being an illusion caused by lack of realistic choice until UKIP turned up (Tory + UKIP still > than 50%) many remainers fesr brexit for this reason far more than any economic reason. It is also why the campaign is so fake as no one dares mention this (except Hattie)
Hmm.
Where are the next generation going to come if not from immigration?
Something I've noticed about immigrants - they're not terribly liberal, are they?
So, we need immigration to keep our pay-as-you pension system going, but we import them from illiberal countries, which is a threat to liberal laws on sex.
Watch the John Harris video over on the Guardian to get an idea why Trump is more popular than the media would let you think. For example, shows unionized workers in heart of America voting for him in primaries* and if not him Sanders (and they hate Clinton).
* Where voters can show up and choose a party on the day, then a candidate.
Where are the next generation going to come if not from immigration?
Something I've noticed about immigrants - they're not terribly liberal, are they?
So, we need immigration to keep our pay-as-you pension system going, but we import them from illiberal countries, which is a threat to liberal laws on sex.
Something, somewhere is going to give.
The answer to the West's demographic crisis: More push, less pull.
I see our favouite leftie tweeters aren't happy again
Nick Cohen @NickCohen4 10m10 minutes ago I may be wrong. The Labour Party, great moral movement that it is, has refused to publish the full report.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 21m21 minutes ago Labour doesn't have institutional racism. It has cultural racism. Which is better. Apparently. 0 retweets 0 likes Reply
or for another view
Stephen Pollard @stephenpollard 4m4 minutes ago Reflect on this. Labour peer is appointed to investigate allegations of antisemitism. When she finds they happened, NEC refuses to publish.
Looking forward to the outcome of the investigation into widespread Islamaphobia in the Tory party following Zac's disgraceful campaign.
'Thirty gay MPs and peers today weighed into the EU referendum battle with a call to the lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender and intersex community to unite behind the Remain banner.
In a letter to the Evening Standard marking International Day Against Homophobia, they hailed the EU’s role in promoting human rights worldwide and claimed that it would all be put at risk by a Brexit.
Given that large parts of the EU do not accept Gay marriage (it is only legal in 10 countries including the UK) and that the ECHR rejected a claim that Gay Marriage was a right, I fail to see how the EU can be claimed as some sort of leading light for Gay rights. It strikes me that the UK is rather more advanced on that particular issue than much of the EU.
“This year the EU hopes to secure agreement on the advancement of LGBTI equality covering education, employment, health and asylum across all 28 member states. "Why would we risk all of this by leaving the EU?”
Lord Cashman said: “We must use our influence to promote LGBTI rights across Europe... The United Kingdom is best placed to do this as part of the EU." Apparently
Gay marriage, like abortion, is precisely the sort of issue that must be decided at national, not supranational, level.
Mind you the US Supreme Court imposed it at the Federal level
That is why it is so poisonous over there and has even led to terrorism. The democratic state governments were overruled by a vey creative decision by unelected judges.
Whatever you think of abortion at least in the UK it was legalised by elected MPs and can be banned by them if they see fit. Imagine what would have happened if abortion had been imposed over Parliaments hesd by the European Court of Justice.
I see our favouite leftie tweeters aren't happy again
Nick Cohen @NickCohen4 10m10 minutes ago I may be wrong. The Labour Party, great moral movement that it is, has refused to publish the full report.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 21m21 minutes ago Labour doesn't have institutional racism. It has cultural racism. Which is better. Apparently. 0 retweets 0 likes Reply
or for another view
Stephen Pollard @stephenpollard 4m4 minutes ago Reflect on this. Labour peer is appointed to investigate allegations of antisemitism. When she finds they happened, NEC refuses to publish.
I thought B&Q was short on whitewash when I popped in earlier today. I put it down probable bulk order by a Mr Chilcott, but seems like it was Lord somebody or other.
'Thirty gay MPs and peers today weighed into the EU referendum battle with a call to the lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender and intersex community to unite behind the Remain banner.
In a letter to the Evening Standard marking International Day Against Homophobia, they hailed the EU’s role in promoting human rights worldwide and claimed that it would all be put at risk by a Brexit.
Given that large parts of the EU do not accept Gay marriage (it is only legal in 10 countries including the UK) and that the ECHR rejected a claim that Gay Marriage was a right, I fail to see how the EU can be claimed as some sort of leading light for Gay rights. It strikes me that the UK is rather more advanced on that particular issue than much of the EU.
“This year the EU hopes to secure agreement on the advancement of LGBTI equality covering education, employment, health and asylum across all 28 member states. "Why would we risk all of this by leaving the EU?”
Lord Cashman said: “We must use our influence to promote LGBTI rights across Europe... The United Kingdom is best placed to do this as part of the EU." Apparently
I think this this sort of thing is.one of the key reasons why a large chunk of people will vote exit and why progressives are aghast at the prospect of Brexit.
With the progressive majority in the UK being an illusion caused by lack of realistic choice until UKIP turned up (Tory + UKIP still > than 50%) many remainers fesr brexit for this reason far more than any economic reason. It is also why the campaign is so fake as no one dares mention this (except Hattie)
Hmm.
Where are the next generation going to come if not from immigration?
Something I've noticed about immigrants - they're not terribly liberal, are they?
So, we need immigration to keep our pay-as-you pension system going, but we import them from illiberal countries, which is a threat to liberal laws on sex.
Something, somewhere is going to give.
Gay marriage was criminal when there were almost no Muslims in Britain outside Liverpool and parts of London. It was legalised when the Muslim population was at a record level.
However, just to play devil's advocate to myself: one thing I will say is that, while Hillary is a VERY weak frontrunner, she is also formidable when she's the underdog.
While the election is very likely to get tighter, what will make her tough to beat is that a situation where she goes behind in the polls and is getting a heavy barrage of attacks could itself boost her campaign. In the 2008 primaries, whenever she was on the verge of getting knocked out, she really stepped up her performances on the campaign trail and became the "never-say-die underdog who refuses to quit no matter what the haters say". And whenever that happened, voters (especially women) warmed to her a lot more, or atleast respected and admired her more. A similar thing could happen this time if the election gets very tight, especially if Trump goes overboard with his personal attacks on her.
Sanders is doing both her and the Democratic party serious damage now. She really needs the nomination process to stop and refocus her team in the same way as Trump will be doing.
If Clinton wants it to stop she should withdraw and let Bernie be the candidate.
(Disclaimer: I've backed Trump and therefore my analysis will be skewed.)
I think Trump brings into play a bunch of rust belt states, where free trade has eroded traditional industries. (Also, Tesla is kicking the ass of traditional car companies; did you know they have a quarter of the luxury saloon space.) Maybe not Illinois, but I'd expect him to take Ohio at a canter, and be competitive in Pennsylvania, New Jersey (really), and Wisconsin.
But on the other side of the coin, I think he has little chance of picking up Florida. Despite the "oh, but they're Cuban Hispanics" game that some people play, I think Hispanics of all flavours despise what Trump has said, and I think they come out and vote against him. I would be only mildly surprised if Arizona fell to the Dems, and I think Hillary could come much closer in Texas than I would ever have expected.
'Thirty gay MPs and peers today weighed into the EU referendum battle with a call to the lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender and intersex community to unite behind the Remain banner.
In a letter to the Evening Standard marking International Day Against Homophobia, they hailed the EU’s role in promoting human rights worldwide and claimed that it would all be put at risk by a Brexit.
Given that large parts of the EU do not accept Gay marriage (it is only legal in 10 countries including the UK) and that the ECHR rejected a claim that Gay Marriage was a right, I fail to see how the EU can be claimed as some sort of leading light for Gay rights. It strikes me that the UK is rather more advanced on that particular issue than much of the EU.
“This year the EU hopes to secure agreement on the advancement of LGBTI equality covering education, employment, health and asylum across all 28 member states. "Why would we risk all of this by leaving the EU?”
Lord Cashman said: “We must use our influence to promote LGBTI rights across Europe... The United Kingdom is best placed to do this as part of the EU." Apparently
I think this this sort of thing is.one of the key reasons why a large chunk of people will vote exit and why progressives are aghast at the prospect of Brexit.
With the progressive majority in the UK being an illusion caused by lack of realistic choice until UKIP turned up (Tory + UKIP still > than 50%) many remainers fesr brexit for this reason far more than any economic reason. It is also why the campaign is so fake as no one dares mention this (except Hattie)
Hmm.
Where are the next generation going to come if not from immigration?
Something I've noticed about immigrants - they're not terribly liberal, are they?
So, we need immigration to keep our pay-as-you pension system going, but we import them from illiberal countries, which is a threat to liberal laws on sex.
Something, somewhere is going to give.
A priest prophesised to me thirty years ago that this would happen. He said that cultures that practice contraception and abortion will inevitably be overrun by cultures that do not. - essentially do the maths.
If Hillary is only 75% ahead with blacks, that implies that Trump is on 12.5% - a 'uuuge increase in the GOP's recent performance in that demographic.
Similarly, Hillary ahead with Hispanics by 37% implies The Donald is doing better there, too, with 33%.
So his only relative drop in performance for the GOP is with white women. I have yet to be convinced that their distaste for the man is going to convert on a 1:1 ratio to voting for Hillary.
Not so.
Romney regularly polled 12% AA in the lead up to the election and finished with 6%. Ditto Hispanics 35-40% in polls but 27% in the election.
So with those demographics, the Donald is matching Romney (ok, a little down with Hispanics but -2% of 12% of the electorate is hardly earthmoving) in the polling with the jury out on the election at this point.
Broadly yes.
However both the AA and Hispanic demographic will be higher this year in several swing states.
Also, since 1980, more women vote in the US than men. And black women as a group has the highest voting percentage.
Since 2000, the black electorate has been 12% of the whole. The white electorate has dropped from 78% to a projected 69% in 2016, that is 2% since 2012. The Hispanic electorate is expected to increase from 11% in 2012 to 12% this year.
So, all told, significant shifts in voting patterns within the white electorate, if they happen, will swamp the effects of the demographic changes since 2012. We can expect Trump to do better than Romney with white men and worse with white women. The questions then are 'how big a change in each?' and 'what is going to happen to white turnout?' following the big drop off Romney achieved.
White 69%, Hispanic 12%, Black 12%, Asian 4%, American Indians, Native Hawaians etc 3%.
Whilst a majority Indian [ sub-continent ] voters could vote Republican, this time Muslim voters will hardly vote Trump. Many Muslims used to vote Republican.
I went to see a customer of mine today who manufactures a kind of vehicle both for the UK market and for export to other EU countries.
The difference between the two models is mainly about safety.
The UK model has more Safety requirements. The other one has fewer. It told me:
1. The EU is not responsible for all new regulations.
2. The UK government can impose its own regulations. In this respect, this one is more stringent [ but good ].
Indeed, in safety matters I'd hazard a guess that the UK is very frequently the thought leader.
So every regulation is not imposed by the dreaded EU !
Indeed, not. But no-one has been arguing that Brexit should lead to an absence of regulations in the UK, but rather to regulations we make for ourselves and which are more tailored to our needs and values. Thus, in or out, we need the ability to make regulations and we are, as seen, pretty good at social progress and safety regulations without the EU.
But Remainers have been trying somehow to turn regulatory (in)ability into a weapon against Leave. That is clearly nonsensical.
Inappropriate, inflexible and overly heavy regulations, on the other hand, are harmful. There is ample evidence that the EU has too many of these and an inability to amend or prune those that prove damaging in a timely manner. Hence Leavers' focus on regulations as a weapon against the EU, which is certainly more logical than the other way around.
Gay marriage was criminal when there were almost no Muslims in Britain outside Liverpool and parts of London. It was legalised when the Muslim population was at a record level.
To be fair Vapid didn't mention Muslims. He could just as easily have been referring to immigrants ftom strongly Catholic countries.
When Jack W started posting here 12 years ago he told us he was 103. So by my reckoning he will be 115 this year.
Happy birthday Jack
Thank you Mike.
Was it 12 years? .... it only seems like a little more than a decade. I still hadn't got a handle on my ARSE and you still had some ha.. .... er .... hmmm .... you still had some ha ... hassle from some posters ....
If Hillary is only 75% ahead with blacks, that implies that Trump is on 12.5% - a 'uuuge increase in the GOP's recent performance in that demographic.
Similarly, Hillary ahead with Hispanics by 37% implies The Donald is doing better there, too, with 33%.
So his only relative drop in performance for the GOP is with white women. I have yet to be convinced that their distaste for the man is going to convert on a 1:1 ratio to voting for Hillary.
Not so.
Romney regularly polled 12% AA in the lead up to the election and finished with 6%. Ditto Hispanics 35-40% in polls but 27% in the election.
So with those demographics, the Donald is matching Romney (ok, a little down with Hispanics but -2% of 12% of the electorate is hardly earthmoving) in the polling with the jury out on the election at this point.
Broadly yes.
However both the AA and Hispanic demographic will be higher this year in several swing states.
Also, since 1980, more women vote in the US than men. And black women as a group has the highest voting percentage.
Since 2000, the black electorate has been 12% of the whole. The white electorate has dropped from 78% to a projected 69% in 2016, that is 2% since 2012. The Hispanic electorate is expected to increase from 11% in 2012 to 12% this year.
So, all told, significant shifts in voting patterns within the white electorate, if they happen, will swamp the effects of the demographic changes since 2012. We can expect Trump to do better than Romney with white men and worse with white women. The questions then are 'how big a change in each?' and 'what is going to happen to white turnout?' following the big drop off Romney achieved.
White 69%, Hispanic 12%, Black 12%, Asian 4%, American Indians, Native Hawaians etc 3%.
Whilst a majority Indian [ sub-continent ] voters could vote Republican, this time Muslim voters will hardly vote Trump. Many Muslims used to vote Republican.
The worst Muslims I know are a pair of Persian lawyers in LA. (As in, "Muslims" who pay the least attention to the teachings of Mohammed, rather than the kind of Muslims that blow other people up.) I don't think either of them knows what a Democrat is, but I doubt they'll vote for Trump in November.
'Thirty gay MPs and peers today weighed into the EU referendum battle with a call to the lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender and intersex community to unite behind the Remain banner.
In a letter to the Evening Standard marking International Day Against Homophobia, they hailed the EU’s role in promoting human rights worldwide and claimed that it would all be put at risk by a Brexit.
Given that large parts of the EU do not accept Gay marriage (it is only legal in 10 countries including the UK) and that the ECHR rejected a claim that Gay Marriage was a right, I fail to see how the EU can be claimed as some sort of leading light for Gay rights. It strikes me that the UK is rather more advanced on that particular issue than much of the EU.
“This year the EU hopes to secure agreement on the advancement of LGBTI equality covering education, employment, health and asylum across all 28 member states. "Why would we risk all of this by leaving the EU?”
Lord Cashman said: “We must use our influence to promote LGBTI rights across Europe... The United Kingdom is best placed to do this as part of the EU." Apparently
I think this this sort of thing is.one of the key reasons why a large chunk of people will vote exit and why progressives are aghast at the prospect of Brexit.
With the progressive majority in the UK being an illusion caused by lack of realistic choice until UKIP turned up (Tory + UKIP still > than 50%) many remainers fesr brexit for this reason far more than any economic reason. It is also why the campaign is so fake as no one dares mention this (except Hattie)
Hmm.
Where are the next generation going to come if not from immigration?
Something I've noticed about immigrants - they're not terribly liberal, are they?
So, we need immigration to keep our pay-as-you pension system going, but we import them from illiberal countries, which is a threat to liberal laws on sex.
Something, somewhere is going to give.
Gay marriage was criminal when there were almost no Muslims in Britain outside Liverpool and parts of London. It was legalised when the Muslim population was at a record level.
So, it is a lagging cultural indicator. So what? Oh, of course, the end of piracy caused global warming.
Gay marriage was criminal when there were almost no Muslims in Britain outside Liverpool and parts of London. It was legalised when the Muslim population was at a record level.
To be fair Vapid didn't mention Muslims. He could just as easily have been referring to immigrants ftom strongly Catholic countries.
Sure. There were definitely more Catholics in the UK before 1922.
Given that large parts of the EU do not accept Gay marriage (it is only legal in 10 countries including the UK) and that the ECHR rejected a claim that Gay Marriage was a right, I fail to see how the EU can be claimed as some sort of leading light for Gay rights. It strikes me that the UK is rather more advanced on that particular issue than much of the EU.
“This year the EU hopes to secure agreement on the advancement of LGBTI equality covering education, employment, health and asylum across all 28 member states. "Why would we risk all of this by leaving the EU?”
Lord Cashman said: “We must use our influence to promote LGBTI rights across Europe... The United Kingdom is best placed to do this as part of the EU." Apparently
I think this this sort of thing is.one of the key reasons why a large chunk of people will vote exit and why progressives are aghast at the prospect of Brexit.
With the progressive majority in the UK being an illusion caused by lack of realistic choice until UKIP turned up (Tory + UKIP still > than 50%) many remainers fesr brexit for this reason far more than any economic reason. It is also why the campaign is so fake as no one dares mention this (except Hattie)
Hmm.
Where are the next generation going to come if not from immigration?
Something I've noticed about immigrants - they're not terribly liberal, are they?
So, we need immigration to keep our pay-as-you pension system going, but we import them from illiberal countries, which is a threat to liberal laws on sex.
Something, somewhere is going to give.
A priest prophesised to me thirty years ago that this would happen. He said that cultures that practice contraception and abortion will inevitably be overrun by cultures that do not. - essentially do the maths.
Yeah, but the birth rates in Europe are lowest in the most (Catholic) religious countries: Italy, Spain, Poland, and Ireland. Which is odd, no?
'Thirty gay MPs and peers today weighed into the EU referendum battle with a call to the lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender and intersex community to unite behind the Remain banner.
In a letter to the Evening Standard marking International Day Against Homophobia, they hailed the EU’s role in promoting human rights worldwide and claimed that it would all be put at risk by a Brexit.
Given that large parts of the EU do not accept Gay marriage (it is only legal in 10 countries including the UK) and that the ECHR rejected a claim that Gay Marriage was a right, I fail to see how the EU can be claimed as some sort of leading light for Gay rights. It strikes me that the UK is rather more advanced on that particular issue than much of the EU.
A large chunk of the Conservative party doesn't accept gay marriage.
That is completely beside the point. The point is that a majority of our elected representatives accepted it and I would suggest a majority of our population does also. To try and claim we have more protection for gays inside the EU compared to outside is plainly wrong.
Given that large parts of the EU do not accept Gay marriage (it is only legal in 10 countries including the UK) and that the ECHR rejected a claim that Gay Marriage was a right, I fail to see how the EU can be claimed as some sort of leading light for Gay rights. It strikes me that the UK is rather more advanced on that particular issue than much of the EU.
You're conflating "the European Union and its institutions" (EU) with "the member states of the European Union" (EU-28). Several of the EU-28 are about as gay-unfriendly as you can get. But the EU is pretty much exactly the opposite.
The obvious example that springs to mind is the Equality Act 2010, which simply wouldn't have happened without the EU (and given the timing of the 2010 General Election, was a damn close-run thing).
Saying the EU is homophobic because some of the EU-28 are homophobic is like saying Batman is pro-crime because the Joker is pro-crime.
(Disclaimer: I've backed Trump and therefore my analysis will be skewed.)
I think Trump brings into play a bunch of rust belt states, where free trade has eroded traditional industries. (Also, Tesla is kicking the ass of traditional car companies; did you know they have a quarter of the luxury saloon space.) Maybe not Illinois, but I'd expect him to take Ohio at a canter, and be competitive in Pennsylvania, New Jersey (really), and Wisconsin.
But on the other side of the coin, I think he has little chance of picking up Florida. Despite the "oh, but they're Cuban Hispanics" game that some people play, I think Hispanics of all flavours despise what Trump has said, and I think they come out and vote against him. I would be only mildly surprised if Arizona fell to the Dems, and I think Hillary could come much closer in Texas than I would ever have expected.
The polls so far from Florida say that Trump will win the cuban vote at a smaller margin. However that is balanced by the retirees.
But so far the state polls still follow the same pattern, Trump loses ground where republicans are more numerous and gains ground where democrats are more numerous, simply because he gets moderate democrats and loses establishment republicans.
The geographical balance of his gains vs loses will determine this election.
If Hillary is only 75% ahead with blacks, that implies that Trump is on 12.5% - a 'uuuge increase in the GOP's recent performance in that demographic.
Similarly, Hillary ahead with Hispanics by 37% implies The Donald is doing better there, too, with 33%.
So his only relative drop in performance for the GOP is with white women. I have yet to be convinced that their distaste for the man is going to convert on a 1:1 ratio to voting for Hillary.
Not so.
Romney regularly polled 12% AA in the lead up to the election and finished with 6%. Ditto Hispanics 35-40% in polls but 27% in the election.
So with those demographics, the Donald is matching Romney (ok, a little down with Hispanics but -2% of 12% of the electorate is hardly earthmoving) in the polling with the jury out on the election at this point.
Broadly yes.
However both the AA and Hispanic demographic will be higher this year in several swing states.
Also, since 1980, more women vote in the US than men. And black women as a group has the highest voting percentage.
Since 2000, the black electorate has been 12% of the whole. The white electorate has dropped from 78% to a projected 69% in 2016, that is 2% since 2012. The Hispanic electorate is expected to increase from 11% in 2012 to 12% this year.
So, all told, significant shifts in voting patterns within the white electorate, if they happen, will swamp the effects of the demographic changes since 2012. We can expect Trump to do better than Romney with white men and worse with white women. The questions then are 'how big a change in each?' and 'what is going to happen to white turnout?' following the big drop off Romney achieved.
White 69%, Hispanic 12%, Black 12%, Asian 4%, American Indians, Native Hawaians etc 3%.
Whilst a majority Indian [ sub-continent ] voters could vote Republican, this time Muslim voters will hardly vote Trump. Many Muslims used to vote Republican.
I think Asians in the USA are mainly East Asians. And a lot of Middle Eastern Muslims are included in Whites. Not to mention that Hispanic is a different Censal category altogether to race, so you can be White/Black/Asian Hispanic. Funny system they have.
Given that large parts of the EU do not accept Gay marriage (it is only legal in 10 countries including the UK) and that the ECHR rejected a claim that Gay Marriage was a right, I fail to see how the EU can be claimed as some sort of leading light for Gay rights. It strikes me that the UK is rather more advanced on that particular issue than much of the EU.
You're conflating "the European Union and its institutions" (EU) with "the member states of the European Union" (EU-28). Several of the EU-28 are about as gay-unfriendly as you can get. But the EU is pretty much exactly the opposite.
The obvious example that springs to mind is the Equality Act 2010, which simply wouldn't have happened without the EU (and given the timing of the 2010 General Election, was a damn close-run thing).
Saying the EU is homophobic because some of the EU-28 are homophobic is like saying Batman is pro-crime because the Joker is pro-crime.
Wasn't that act just a compilation of all previous discrimination legislation?
I also don't think Richard said the EU was homophobic. Just that it shouldn't be highlighted as a beacon of gay rights.
Jill Stein got 0.34% last time, I doubt Gary Johnson will get 6%. The 45/41 is closer to reality I think. Nevertheless it will push Trump to the heady heights of 191 once it is factored into Rod Crosby's spreadsheet !
A priest prophesised to me thirty years ago that this would happen. He said that cultures that practice contraception and abortion will inevitably be overrun by cultures that do not. - essentially do the maths.
Yeah, but the birth rates in Europe are lowest in the most (Catholic) religious countries: Italy, Spain, Poland, and Ireland. Which is odd, no?
The birth rate in Ireland is pretty good. I'm quite sure it's up there with France and Sweden as the highest in the EU, or maybe it was before the crisis.
More critical is that in living memory, the culture that opposed contraception was replaced by the culture that practiced it (including in those countries). So prophecies from holy men should be taken with a pinch of salt, I think it is fair to say.
If Hillary is only 75% ahead with blacks, that implies that Trump is on 12.5% - a 'uuuge increase in the GOP's recent performance in that demographic.
Similarly, Hillary ahead with Hispanics by 37% implies The Donald is doing better there, too, with 33%.
So his only relative drop in performance for the GOP is with white women. I have yet to be convinced that their distaste for the man is going to convert on a 1:1 ratio to voting for Hillary.
Not so.
Romney regularly polled 12% AA in the lead up to the election and finished with 6%. Ditto Hispanics 35-40% in polls but 27% in the election.
So with those demographics, the Donald is matching Romney (ok, a little down with Hispanics but -2% of 12% of the electorate is hardly earthmoving) in the polling with the jury out on the election at this point.
Broadly yes.
However both the AA and Hispanic demographic will be higher this year in several swing states.
Also, since 1980, more women vote in the US than men. And black women as a group has the highest voting percentage.
Since 2000, the black electorate has been 12% of the whole. The white electorate has dropped from 78% to a projected 69% in 2016, that is 2% since 2012. The Hispanic electorate is expected to increase from 11% in 2012 to 12% this year.
So, all told, significant shifts in voting patterns within the white electorate, if they happen, will swamp the effects of the demographic changes since 2012. We can expect Trump to do better than Romney with white men and worse with white women. The questions then are 'how big a change in each?' and 'what is going to happen to white turnout?' following the big drop off Romney achieved.
White 69%, Hispanic 12%, Black 12%, Asian 4%, American Indians, Native Hawaians etc 3%.
Whilst a majority Indian [ sub-continent ] voters could vote Republican, this time Muslim voters will hardly vote Trump. Many Muslims used to vote Republican.
I think Asians in the USA are mainly East Asians. And a lot of Middle Eastern Muslims are included in Whites. Not to mention that Hispanic is a different Censal category altogether to race, so you can be White/Black/Asian Hispanic. Funny system they have.
Indeed, the Philippino, Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese between them must form a big majority of Asians in the US.
Given that large parts of the EU do not accept Gay marriage (it is only legal in 10 countries including the UK) and that the ECHR rejected a claim that Gay Marriage was a right, I fail to see how the EU can be claimed as some sort of leading light for Gay rights. It strikes me that the UK is rather more advanced on that particular issue than much of the EU.
You're conflating "the European Union and its institutions" (EU) with "the member states of the European Union" (EU-28). Several of the EU-28 are about as gay-unfriendly as you can get. But the EU is pretty much exactly the opposite.
The obvious example that springs to mind is the Equality Act 2010, which simply wouldn't have happened without the EU (and given the timing of the 2010 General Election, was a damn close-run thing).
Saying the EU is homophobic because some of the EU-28 are homophobic is like saying Batman is pro-crime because the Joker is pro-crime.
Wasn't that act just a compilation of all previous discrimination legislation?
I also don't think Richard said the EU was homophobic. Just that it shouldn't be highlighted as a beacon of gay rights.
Given that large parts of the EU do not accept Gay marriage (it is only legal in 10 countries including the UK) and that the ECHR rejected a claim that Gay Marriage was a right, I fail to see how the EU can be claimed as some sort of leading light for Gay rights. It strikes me that the UK is rather more advanced on that particular issue than much of the EU.
“This year the EU hopes to secure agreement on the advancement of LGBTI equality covering education, employment, health and asylum across all 28 member states. "Why would we risk all of this by leaving the EU?”
Lord Cashman said: “We must use our influence to promote LGBTI rights across Europe... The United Kingdom is best placed to do this as part of the EU." Apparently
I think this this sort of thing is.one of the key reasons why a large chunk of people will vote exit and why progressives are aghast at the prospect of Brexit.
With the progressive majority in the UK being an illusion caused by lack of realistic choice until UKIP turned up (Tory + UKIP still > than 50%) many remainers fesr brexit for this reason far more than any economic reason. It is also why the campaign is so fake as no one dares mention this (except Hattie)
Hmm.
Where are the next generation going to come if not from immigration?
Something I've noticed about immigrants - they're not terribly liberal, are they?
So, we need immigration to keep our pay-as-you pension system going, but we import them from illiberal countries, which is a threat to liberal laws on sex.
Something, somewhere is going to give.
A priest prophesised to me thirty years ago that this would happen. He said that cultures that practice contraception and abortion will inevitably be overrun by cultures that do not. - essentially do the maths.
Yeah, but the birth rates in Europe are lowest in the most (Catholic) religious countries: Italy, Spain, Poland, and Ireland. Which is odd, no?
Thats because most European Catholics dissent from the churchs teachings and practice contraception and a good number abortion too.
Catholics, other Christians and Muslims in Asia and Africa have a rather dufferent view.
The so called arab spring was caused by huge populations and a young population uprising when economic conditions deteriorated rezulting in mass movement of that young population into Europe where birth rates are declining. Few of them will be Guardian readers.
'Thirty gay MPs and peers today weighed into the EU referendum battle with a call to the lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender and intersex community to unite behind the Remain banner.
In a letter to the Evening Standard marking International Day Against Homophobia, they hailed the EU’s role in promoting human rights worldwide and claimed that it would all be put at risk by a Brexit.
Given that large parts of the EU do not accept Gay marriage (it is only legal in 10 countries including the UK) and that the ECHR rejected a claim that Gay Marriage was a right, I fail to see how the EU can be claimed as some sort of leading light for Gay rights. It strikes me that the UK is rather more advanced on that particular issue than much of the EU.
“This year the EU hopes to secure agreement on the advancement of LGBTI equality covering education, employment, health and asylum across all 28 member states. "Why would we risk all of this by leaving the EU?”
Lord Cashman said: “We must use our influence to promote LGBTI rights across Europe... The United Kingdom is best placed to do this as part of the EU." Apparently
I think this this sort of thing is.one of the key reasons why a large chunk of people will vote exit and why progressives are aghast at the prospect of Brexit.
With the progressive majority in the UK being an illusion caused by lack of realistic choice until UKIP turned up (Tory + UKIP still > than 50%) many remainers fesr brexit for this reason far more than any economic reason. It is also why the campaign is so fake as no one dares mention this (except Hattie)
Mind you many Tories support gay marriage, UKIP includes some more socially conservative old Labour voters
There are plenty of openly gay members of UKIP for example David Coburn their MEP in Scotland and Peter Whittle London mayoral candidate and now a London Assembly member.
Some LGBT Conservatives also support BREXIT for example Nigel Evans the deputy speaker.
Gay marriage was criminal when there were almost no Muslims in Britain outside Liverpool and parts of London. It was legalised when the Muslim population was at a record level.
To be fair Vapid didn't mention Muslims. He could just as easily have been referring to immigrants ftom strongly Catholic countries.
Sure. There were definitely more Catholics in the UK before 1922.
Are you sure? There are an awful lot of Poles here now, and the part of Ireland that seceded had only quite a small population. I think it would actually be pretty close.
Given that large parts of the EU do not accept Gay marriage (it is only legal in 10 countries including the UK) and that the ECHR rejected a claim that Gay Marriage was a right, I fail to see how the EU can be claimed as some sort of leading light for Gay rights. It strikes me that the UK is rather more advanced on that particular issue than much of the EU.
You're conflating "the European Union and its institutions" (EU) with "the member states of the European Union" (EU-28). Several of the EU-28 are about as gay-unfriendly as you can get. But the EU is pretty much exactly the opposite.
The obvious example that springs to mind is the Equality Act 2010, which simply wouldn't have happened without the EU (and given the timing of the 2010 General Election, was a damn close-run thing).
Saying the EU is homophobic because some of the EU-28 are homophobic is like saying Batman is pro-crime because the Joker is pro-crime.
I have not said the EU is homophobic. Only that the idea that it is more favourable to homosexuality than the UK is clearly false. As an example it is worth remembering that the ECJ has said it will not rule on gay marriage issues until there is a majority amongst the member states in favour.
I see our favouite leftie tweeters aren't happy again
Nick Cohen @NickCohen4 10m10 minutes ago I may be wrong. The Labour Party, great moral movement that it is, has refused to publish the full report.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 21m21 minutes ago Labour doesn't have institutional racism. It has cultural racism. Which is better. Apparently. 0 retweets 0 likes Reply
or for another view
Stephen Pollard @stephenpollard 4m4 minutes ago Reflect on this. Labour peer is appointed to investigate allegations of antisemitism. When she finds they happened, NEC refuses to publish.
Looking forward to the outcome of the investigation into widespread Islamaphobia in the Tory party following Zac's disgraceful campaign.
Oh, forgot. There isn't going to be one.
One step at a time and before you start pointing fingers and making allegations. Their time will come if such a thing exists in the first place.
The fact remains at this point antisemitism has been clearly demonstrated to occur in Labour. Why won't they publish the report?
Jill Stein got 0.34% last time, I doubt Gary Johnson will get 6%. The 45/41 is closer to reality I think. Nevertheless it will push Trump to the heady heights of 191 once it is factored into Rod Crosby's spreadsheet !
2 states flipped in favour of Trump this week in polls, Utah and Arizona. There is a need for more state polls to fill the gaps, I'm very interested for polls from these states:
Wasn't that act just a compilation of all previous discrimination legislation?
Yes. And no.
By placing all the preceding legislation under one over-arching framework it "filled in the gaps" so to speak, filling in lacunae that one had that another did not and provided one-stop-shopping for redress. So it made life simpler and more protected. The fact that the impetus came from Directives instead of the UK's more traditional approach (piecemeal and only when forced) makes it plain that the EU on this occasion was gay-friendly and in advance of the UK, not behind it.
Jill Stein got 0.34% last time, I doubt Gary Johnson will get 6%. The 45/41 is closer to reality I think. Nevertheless it will push Trump to the heady heights of 191 once it is factored into Rod Crosby's spreadsheet !
If Trump only wins Arizona by 4 points then he's tanking much worse than Romney generally and likely with Hispanics especially.
Nevada, Colorado and Florida are way gone along with all the swing states.
Jill Stein got 0.34% last time, I doubt Gary Johnson will get 6%. The 45/41 is closer to reality I think. Nevertheless it will push Trump to the heady heights of 191 once it is factored into Rod Crosby's spreadsheet !
I think AZ remains at TCTC, despite this poll [median lead of a minimum of the last three polls].
'Thirty gay MPs and peers today weighed into the EU referendum battle with a call to the lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender and intersex community to unite behind the Remain banner.
In a letter to the Evening Standard marking International Day Against Homophobia, they hailed the EU’s role in promoting human rights worldwide and claimed that it would all be put at risk by a Brexit.
Given that large parts of the EU do not accept Gay marriage (it is only legal in 10 countries including the UK) and that the ECHR rejected a claim that Gay Marriage was a right, I fail to see how the EU can be claimed as some sort of leading light for Gay rights. It strikes me that the UK is rather more advanced on that particular issue than much of the EU.
“This year the EU hopes to secure agreement on the advancement of LGBTI equality covering education, employment, health and asylum across all 28 member states. "Why would we risk all of this by leaving the EU?”
Lord Cashman said: “We must use our influence to promote LGBTI rights across Europe... The United Kingdom is best placed to do this as part of the EU." Apparently
I think this this sort of thing is.one of the key reasons why a large chunk of people will vote exit and why progressives are aghast at the prospect of Brexit.
With the progressive majority in the UK being an illusion caused by lack of realistic choice until UKIP turned up (Tory + UKIP still > than 50%) many remainers fesr brexit for this reason far more than any economic reason. It is also why the campaign is so fake as no one dares mention this (except Hattie)
Mind you many Tories support gay marriage, UKIP includes some more socially conservative old Labour voters
There are plenty of openly gay members of UKIP for example David Coburn their MEP in Scotland and Peter Whittle London mayoral candidate and now a London Assembly member.
Some LGBT Conservatives also support BREXIT for example Nigel Evans the deputy speaker.
The reasons for gay people to support or oppose Brexit are the same as for everyone else.
Wasn't that act just a compilation of all previous discrimination legislation?
Yes. And no.
By placing all the preceding legislation under one over-arching framework it "filled in the gaps" so to speak, filling in lacunae that one had that another did not and provided one-stop-shopping for redress. So it made life simpler and more protected. The fact that the impetus came from Directives instead of the UK's more traditional approach (piecemeal and only when forced) makes it plain that the EU on this occasion was gay-friendly and in advance of the UK, not behind it.
Having it bundled into one act will also make repealing the lot much easier if the political shade turned a rather darker blue.
I see our favouite leftie tweeters aren't happy again
Nick Cohen @NickCohen4 10m10 minutes ago I may be wrong. The Labour Party, great moral movement that it is, has refused to publish the full report.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 21m21 minutes ago Labour doesn't have institutional racism. It has cultural racism. Which is better. Apparently. 0 retweets 0 likes Reply
or for another view
Stephen Pollard @stephenpollard 4m4 minutes ago Reflect on this. Labour peer is appointed to investigate allegations of antisemitism. When she finds they happened, NEC refuses to publish.
Looking forward to the outcome of the investigation into widespread Islamaphobia in the Tory party following Zac's disgraceful campaign.
Oh, forgot. There isn't going to be one.
It was not Islamophobic to ask legitimate questions of Khan who, it is worth remembering, apologised for giving the impression that he agreed with extremists' views and for his use of what he accepted was a racist term ("Uncle Toms"). Khan accepted that he had on occasion been unwise in his choice of language and associates and, to his credit, showed rather more self-awareness than other members of his party.
He now deserves a chance to show us what he is capable of.
Would that his party leader had the same self-awareness, self-criticism and willingness to admit mistakes.
Jill Stein got 0.34% last time, I doubt Gary Johnson will get 6%. The 45/41 is closer to reality I think. Nevertheless it will push Trump to the heady heights of 191 once it is factored into Rod Crosby's spreadsheet !
If Trump only wins Arizona by 4 points then he's tanking much worse than Romney generally and likely with Hispanics especially.
Nevada, Colorado and Florida are way gone along with all the swing states.
I guess a lot may also depend on whether Hispanics and Muslims vote for Hillary or decide she is also beyond the pale and sit on their hands
Given that large parts of the EU do not accept Gay marriage (it is only legal in 10 countries including the UK) and that the ECHR rejected a claim that Gay Marriage was a right, I fail to see how the EU can be claimed as some sort of leading light for Gay rights. It strikes me that the UK is rather more advanced on that particular issue than much of the EU.
You're conflating "the European Union and its institutions" (EU) with "the member states of the European Union" (EU-28). Several of the EU-28 are about as gay-unfriendly as you can get. But the EU is pretty much exactly the opposite.
The obvious example that springs to mind is the Equality Act 2010, which simply wouldn't have happened without the EU (and given the timing of the 2010 General Election, was a damn close-run thing).
Saying the EU is homophobic because some of the EU-28 are homophobic is like saying Batman is pro-crime because the Joker is pro-crime.
Wasn't that act just a compilation of all previous discrimination legislation?
I also don't think Richard said the EU was homophobic. Just that it shouldn't be highlighted as a beacon of gay rights.
The EU did not cause the Equality Act 2010.
Whether it did or didn't and whether it's a cause you might believe in or not is irrelevant.
It's a matter for sovereign self-governing nations to decide.
The Dutch legalised gay marriage early in 2001, and Canada in 2005. Others, like Germany and Australia, are yet to do so and many Eastern European countries have religious objections.
As an example it is worth remembering that the ECJ has said it will not rule on gay marriage issues until there is a majority amongst the member states in favour.
I wouldn't dispute that, but I am going to point out that (unless you are saying the UK is going to enforce gay marriage issues on the EU-28 before the ECJ is) that's not actually an example.
'Thirty gay MPs and peers today weighed into the EU referendum battle with a call to the lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender and intersex community to unite behind the Remain banner.
In a letter to the Evening Standard marking International Day Against Homophobia, they hailed the EU’s role in promoting human rights worldwide and claimed that it would all be put at risk by a Brexit.
Given that large parts of the EU do not accept Gay marriage (it is only legal in 10 countries including the UK) and that the ECHR rejected a claim that Gay Marriage was a right, I fail to see how the EU can be claimed as some sort of leading light for Gay rights. It strikes me that the UK is rather more advanced on that particular issue than much of the EU.
“This year the EU hopes to secure agreement on the advancement of LGBTI equality covering education, employment, health and asylum across all 28 member states. "Why would we risk all of this by leaving the EU?”
Lord Cashman said: “We must use our influence to promote LGBTI rights across Europe... The United Kingdom is best placed to do this as part of the EU." Apparently
I think this this sort of thing is.one of the key reasons why a large chunk of people will vote exit and why progressives are aghast at the prospect of Brexit.
With the progressive majority in the UK being an illusion caused by lack of realistic choice until UKIP turned up (Tory + UKIP still > than 50%) many remainers fesr brexit for this reason far more than any economic reason. It is also why the campaign is so fake as no one dares mention this (except Hattie)
Mind you many Tories support gay marriage, UKIP includes some more socially conservative old Labour voters
There are plenty of openly gay members of UKIP for example David Coburn their MEP in Scotland and Peter Whittle London mayoral candidate and now a London Assembly member.
Some LGBT Conservatives also support BREXIT for example Nigel Evans the deputy speaker.
Some LGBT people are very right wing just as with all segments of tbe community. Indeed I suspect some of them even supported Section 28 in the 90's
I guess a lot may also depend on whether Hispanics and Muslims vote for Hillary or decide she is also beyond the pale and sit on their hands
The evidence is the former enhanced by Trump's huge negatives with both groups. Additionally there are very significant Hispanic voter drives being undertaken focusing especially in the swing states.
Wasn't that act just a compilation of all previous discrimination legislation?
Yes. And no.
By placing all the preceding legislation under one over-arching framework it "filled in the gaps" so to speak, filling in lacunae that one had that another did not and provided one-stop-shopping for redress. So it made life simpler and more protected. The fact that the impetus came from Directives instead of the UK's more traditional approach (piecemeal and only when forced) makes it plain that the EU on this occasion was gay-friendly and in advance of the UK, not behind it.
Having it bundled into one act will also make repealing the lot much easier if the political shade turned a rather darker blue.
True. But that will always be the case, Brexit or no.
I guess a lot may also depend on whether Hispanics and Muslims vote for Hillary or decide she is also beyond the pale and sit on their hands
The evidence is the former enhanced by Trump's huge negatives with both groups. Additionally there are very significant Hispanic voter drives being undertaken focusing especially in the swing states.
It was not Islamophobic to ask legitimate questions of Khan who, it is worth remembering, apologised for giving the impression that he agreed with extremists' views and for his use of what he accepted was a racist term ("Uncle Toms"). Khan accepted that he had on occasion been unwise in his choice of language and associates and, to his credit, showed rather more self-awareness than other members of his party.
He now deserves a chance to show us what he is capable of.
Would that his party leader had the same self-awareness, self-criticism and willingness to admit mistakes.
Well, talking of willingness to admit mistakes, numerous Conservatives have admitted that the campaign against Khan attempting guilt by association ("we accept that he's not an Islamist extremist but...") was (a) unpleasant and (b) ludicrous. It would be nice if the same Conservatives advised against use of precisely the same tactics against Corbyn - "we accept that he's not a terrorist sympathiser/anti-semitic himself but..."
The reality is that most politicians have sometimes appeared on platforms with people who have said something dodgy, and quite possibly been polite to them, appeared in a photo with them, and so on. You have the chance to express your views, so you express them. That's why I argued in favour of sanctions on Iran on Press TV - since they were willing to broadcast that view (because, I think, they saw them as a lesser evil to military intervention), fine. Every politician knows that, which is why the Conservative campaign was so discreditable.
Absolutely off topic, but I am still hoping to avoid the never ending EU ref topic. Just back from a climbing trip in Nepal, and standard fare in the tea houses was a Snicker pie, or a Mars bar pie, I avoided both, but... I face new dangers,tomorrow, I start the NC500 tour of Scotland, can I avoid the battered Mars bar, and what if I come face to face with Malcolm. Whatever , I like to live dangerously, and on return I hope to be out of the UK until it is all over.
'Thirty gay MPs and peers today weighed into the EU referendum battle with a call to the lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender and intersex community to unite behind the Remain banner.
In a letter to the Evening Standard marking International Day Against Homophobia, they hailed the EU’s role in promoting human rights worldwide and claimed that it would all be put at risk by a Brexit.
Khan took a higher share of the vote than Zac in the bloody city of London!!!!!!!!1???????????wtf?
Looks like a swing of about 200 voters.
Interesting maps - the turnout map does show outer London turnout as somewhat higher but it's very patchy.
On the City, there aren't many voters at all, but Khan did make an effort for them, whereas I don't remember Zac saying anything much about business, perhaps feeling they were in the bag. Might have missed it though.
It was not Islamophobic to ask legitimate questions of Khan who, it is worth remembering, apologised for giving the impression that he agreed with extremists' views and for his use of what he accepted was a racist term ("Uncle Toms"). Khan accepted that he had on occasion been unwise in his choice of language and associates and, to his credit, showed rather more self-awareness than other members of his party.
He now deserves a chance to show us what he is capable of.
Would that his party leader had the same self-awareness, self-criticism and willingness to admit mistakes.
Well, talking of willingness to admit mistakes, numerous Conservatives have admitted that the campaign against Khan attempting guilt by association ("we accept that he's not an Islamist extremist but...") was (a) unpleasant and (b) ludicrous. It would be nice if the same Conservatives advised against use of precisely the same tactics against Corbyn - "we accept that he's not a terrorist sympathiser/anti-semitic himself but..."
The reality is that most politicians have sometimes appeared on platforms with people who have said something dodgy, and quite possibly been polite to them, appeared in a photo with them, and so on. You have the chance to express your views, so you express them. That's why I argued in favour of sanctions on Iran on Press TV - since they were willing to broadcast that view (because, I think, they saw them as a lesser evil to military intervention), fine. Every politician knows that, which is why the Conservative campaign was so discreditable.
Unless I'm very much mistaken (and Murray Walker is fast approaching his own 93rd birthday would you believe), our very own JackW celebrates his birthday in January.
On topic, Trump may be good value at 24%. But there are major imponderables to come. Sanders endorsing Clinton (he will). The VPs. Trump going all moderate, having secured the nomination (he will). And so on. In the end I think his lack of self-discipline (which Hillary has in spades) will prove his undoing.
It was not Islamophobic to ask legitimate questions of Khan who, it is worth remembering, apologised for giving the impression that he agreed with extremists' views and for his use of what he accepted was a racist term ("Uncle Toms"). Khan accepted that he had on occasion been unwise in his choice of language and associates and, to his credit, showed rather more self-awareness than other members of his party.
He now deserves a chance to show us what he is capable of.
Would that his party leader had the same self-awareness, self-criticism and willingness to admit mistakes.
Well, talking of willingness to admit mistakes, numerous Conservatives have admitted that the campaign against Khan attempting guilt by association ("we accept that he's not an Islamist extremist but...") was (a) unpleasant and (b) ludicrous. It would be nice if the same Conservatives advised against use of precisely the same tactics against Corbyn - "we accept that he's not a terrorist sympathiser/anti-semitic himself but..."
The reality is that most politicians have sometimes appeared on platforms with people who have said something dodgy, and quite possibly been polite to them, appeared in a photo with them, and so on. You have the chance to express your views, so you express them. That's why I argued in favour of sanctions on Iran on Press TV - since they were willing to broadcast that view (because, I think, they saw them as a lesser evil to military intervention), fine. Every politician knows that, which is why the Conservative campaign was so discreditable.
As they admit. But they'll do it again.
He clearly was an IRA sympathiser.
To quote Bernard Woolley, when Hacker was issuing a flat denial of some embarrassing revelations, 'The only problem is, it is sort of true, isn't it?'
Over antisemitism he has some serious explaining to do. To share a platform with one nutcase may be excused as careless, to appoint one to a defence review looks like stupidity.
The very fact people are uttering the phrase "Trump is now in the lead in Utah" should cause people, people who are decrying Hilary as the worst presidential candidate ever, to pause and give thought.
The very fact people are uttering the phrase "Trump is now in the lead in Utah" should cause people, people who are decrying Hilary as the worst presidential candidate ever, to pause and give thought.
Safe seats change over time, I think the SNP are more likely to have Glasgow Central in 2035 rather than Perth & North Perthshire
Wasn't that act just a compilation of all previous discrimination legislation?
Yes. And no.
By placing all the preceding legislation under one over-arching framework it "filled in the gaps" so to speak, filling in lacunae that one had that another did not and provided one-stop-shopping for redress. So it made life simpler and more protected. The fact that the impetus came from Directives instead of the UK's more traditional approach (piecemeal and only when forced) makes it plain that the EU on this occasion was gay-friendly and in advance of the UK, not behind it.
Having it bundled into one act will also make repealing the lot much easier if the political shade turned a rather darker blue.
True. But that will always be the case, Brexit or no.
I always thought new Labour very naive in having an assumption that henceforth the country would always be run by progressive right thinking people.
I cant remember exactly the law but there was something tightening up the laws on the age of consent that I think would have made a 16year old having sex with a 15 year old a lvery serious offence but they were not bothered because the guidelines to the Attorney General were that they should not prosecute as in that case it would not be in the public interest.
You had better hope that Mary Whitehouse never becomes attorney general I thought when I read about it.
I received 2 e-mails today at work today which may be of passing interest to PBers.
The first was from my union, Unison, asking me to get involved in stopping the local government pension fund investing in infrastructure. I don't give a proverbial as I'm not in the public sector and that Union did nothing when my pension rights were significantly curtailed.
The second one was from my employer telling me not to worry about the deficit in the defined benefit scheme I'm a member of that was mentioned in the newspapers on Sunday.
Conclusions? This zero interest rate policy is now starting to put serious strain on companies and unions don't give a proverbial unless it affects the public sector.
On a refendum note, why didn't the unions use their influence to curb immigration? I mean, that's how they work; by rationing labour supply. Perhaps because the effect would be most drastic on wages in the private sector. Just a thought.
Gay marriage was criminal when there were almost no Muslims in Britain outside Liverpool and parts of London. It was legalised when the Muslim population was at a record level.
To be fair Vapid didn't mention Muslims. He could just as easily have been referring to immigrants ftom strongly Catholic countries.
Sure. There were definitely more Catholics in the UK before 1922.
Are you sure? There are an awful lot of Poles here now, and the part of Ireland that seceded had only quite a small population. I think it would actually be pretty close.
Interesting question! Estimated 2 million in England and Wales in the 1920s. I would guess 10 per cent of about 4.5 million people in Scotland. Enumerated 3.2 million in two Irish censes, north and south, 1926. Let's say somewhere over 5.5 million. Actually, after all the immigration, it's about 5.7 million today! So scores even.
Absolutely off topic, but I am still hoping to avoid the never ending EU ref topic. Just back from a climbing trip in Nepal, and standard fare in the tea houses was a Snicker pie, or a Mars bar pie, I avoided both, but... I face new dangers,tomorrow, I start the NC500 tour of Scotland, can I avoid the battered Mars bar, and what if I come face to face with Malcolm. Whatever , I like to live dangerously, and on return I hope to be out of the UK until it is all over.
Snickers melted and served over vanilla icecream is well worth trying. Or maybe I am just having Proustian memory flashbacks.
I cannot see Trump getting past the Electoral College, but even if he gets through he will be hobbled by Congress and Senate so would get frustrated pretty quickly.
It was not Islamophobic to ask legitimate questions of Khan who, it is worth remembering, apologised for giving the impression that he agreed with extremists' views and for his use of what he accepted was a racist term ("Uncle Toms"). Khan accepted that he had on occasion been unwise in his choice of language and associates and, to his credit, showed rather more self-awareness than other members of his party.
He now deserves a chance to show us what he is capable of.
Would that his party leader had the same self-awareness, self-criticism and willingness to admit mistakes.
Well, talking of willingness to admit mistakes, numerous Conservatives have admitted that the campaign against Khan attempting guilt by association ("we accept that he's not an Islamist extremist but...") was (a) unpleasant and (b) ludicrous. It would be nice if the same Conservatives advised against use of precisely the same tactics against Corbyn - "we accept that he's not a terrorist sympathiser/anti-semitic himself but..."
The reality is that most politicians have sometimes appeared on platforms with people who have said something dodgy, and quite possibly been polite to them, appeared in a photo with them, and so on. You have the chance to express your views, so you express them. That's why I argued in favour of sanctions on Iran on Press TV - since they were willing to broadcast that view (because, I think, they saw them as a lesser evil to military intervention), fine. Every politician knows that, which is why the Conservative campaign was so discreditable.
As they admit. But they'll do it again.
He clearly was an IRA sympathiser.
To quote Bernard Woolley, when Hacker was issuing a flat denial of some embarrassing revelations, 'The only problem is, it is sort of true, isn't it?'
Over antisemitism he has some serious explaining to do. To share a platform with one nutcase may be excused as careless, to appoint one to a defence review looks like stupidity.
To understand this you have to understand gramascian philosophy.
The world is divided into victim groups and oppressor groups. Oppressor groups can do no right, victim groups can do no wrong.
To a large chunk of the left Muslims are a victim group subject to oppression from racists and er Israel.
The Jews have therefore become an oppressor group. However thanks to rather unpleasant events in the 1940s others somewhat understandably see them as a victim group.
Comments
With the progressive majority in the UK being an illusion caused by lack of realistic choice until UKIP turned up (Tory + UKIP still > than 50%) many remainers fesr brexit for this reason far more than any economic reason. It is also why the campaign is so fake as no one dares mention this (except Hattie)
Happy birthday Jack
The Democrats have to overcome the following;
8 years in power
A struggling economy
An indifferent legislative record
A weak, elderly and divisive candidate
A police investigation
All of which would normally guarantee defeat. However they have one priceless asset that should just see them home;
The Republican candidate is Donald Trump.
The WWC is a falling demographic nationally and more especially in swing states made worse by increasing minorities voters there.
Where are the next generation going to come if not from immigration?
Something I've noticed about immigrants - they're not terribly liberal, are they?
So, we need immigration to keep our pay-as-you pension system going, but we import them from illiberal countries, which is a threat to liberal laws on sex.
Something, somewhere is going to give.
* Where voters can show up and choose a party on the day, then a candidate.
Oh, forgot. There isn't going to be one.
Whatever you think of abortion at least in the UK it was legalised by elected MPs and can be banned by them if they see fit. Imagine what would have happened if abortion had been imposed over Parliaments hesd by the European Court of Justice.
It was legalised when the Muslim population was at a record level.
Trump 40
Hillary 38
Johnson 6
Stein 2
Trump 45
Hillary 41
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/05/mccain-in-deep-trouble-in-gop-primary-trump-clinton-close-in-az.html
About the same as a December poll showing Trump leading by 2 in Arizona:
http://www.strategies360.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/15-340-AZ-Public-Poll-CrosstabsR.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka6SnkbuUPI
"It has been moved and seconded that the temporary convention rules be passed by the body. All those in favour say 'Aye'"
"Aye"
"All those opposed say 'No'"
"No" (Clearly enough for a vote)
"The ruling by the chair is not debatable ! "
Khan took a higher share of the vote than Zac in the bloody city of London!!!!!!!!1???????????wtf?
I think Trump brings into play a bunch of rust belt states, where free trade has eroded traditional industries. (Also, Tesla is kicking the ass of traditional car companies; did you know they have a quarter of the luxury saloon space.) Maybe not Illinois, but I'd expect him to take Ohio at a canter, and be competitive in Pennsylvania, New Jersey (really), and Wisconsin.
But on the other side of the coin, I think he has little chance of picking up Florida. Despite the "oh, but they're Cuban Hispanics" game that some people play, I think Hispanics of all flavours despise what Trump has said, and I think they come out and vote against him. I would be only mildly surprised if Arizona fell to the Dems, and I think Hillary could come much closer in Texas than I would ever have expected.
Whilst a majority Indian [ sub-continent ] voters could vote Republican, this time Muslim voters will hardly vote Trump. Many Muslims used to vote Republican.
But Remainers have been trying somehow to turn regulatory (in)ability into a weapon against Leave. That is clearly nonsensical.
Inappropriate, inflexible and overly heavy regulations, on the other hand, are harmful. There is ample evidence that the EU has too many of these and an inability to amend or prune those that prove damaging in a timely manner. Hence Leavers' focus on regulations as a weapon against the EU, which is certainly more logical than the other way around.
Maybe not.
Behind the rate already.
Was it 12 years? .... it only seems like a little more than a decade. I still hadn't got a handle on my ARSE and you still had some ha.. .... er .... hmmm .... you still had some ha ... hassle from some posters ....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/17/bbc-recipes-more-than-60000-sign-petition-against-closure-plans/
Conversion heard at broadcasting house..
"Job done, time for a glass of shampoo (on the Beeb credit card of course)."
The obvious example that springs to mind is the Equality Act 2010, which simply wouldn't have happened without the EU (and given the timing of the 2010 General Election, was a damn close-run thing).
Saying the EU is homophobic because some of the EU-28 are homophobic is like saying Batman is pro-crime because the Joker is pro-crime.
However that is balanced by the retirees.
But so far the state polls still follow the same pattern, Trump loses ground where republicans are more numerous and gains ground where democrats are more numerous, simply because he gets moderate democrats and loses establishment republicans.
The geographical balance of his gains vs loses will determine this election.
I also don't think Richard said the EU was homophobic. Just that it shouldn't be highlighted as a beacon of gay rights.
115 and doesn't look a day over a 140!
More critical is that in living memory, the culture that opposed contraception was replaced by the culture that practiced it (including in those countries). So prophecies from holy men should be taken with a pinch of salt, I think it is fair to say.
Catholics, other Christians and Muslims in Asia and Africa have a rather dufferent view.
The so called arab spring was caused by huge populations and a young population uprising when economic conditions deteriorated rezulting in mass movement of that young population into Europe where birth rates are declining. Few of them will be Guardian readers.
Some LGBT Conservatives also support BREXIT for example Nigel Evans the deputy speaker.
The fact remains at this point antisemitism has been clearly demonstrated to occur in Labour. Why won't they publish the report?
There is a need for more state polls to fill the gaps, I'm very interested for polls from these states:
Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Delaware, Virginia, Maine, Nebraska.
Most of them small states though.
Except that is Rod Crosby and he's very seldom wrong.
By placing all the preceding legislation under one over-arching framework it "filled in the gaps" so to speak, filling in lacunae that one had that another did not and provided one-stop-shopping for redress. So it made life simpler and more protected. The fact that the impetus came from Directives instead of the UK's more traditional approach (piecemeal and only when forced) makes it plain that the EU on this occasion was gay-friendly and in advance of the UK, not behind it.
Nevada, Colorado and Florida are way gone along with all the swing states.
It was not Islamophobic to ask legitimate questions of Khan who, it is worth remembering, apologised for giving the impression that he agreed with extremists' views and for his use of what he accepted was a racist term ("Uncle Toms"). Khan accepted that he had on occasion been unwise in his choice of language and associates and, to his credit, showed rather more self-awareness than other members of his party.
He now deserves a chance to show us what he is capable of.
Would that his party leader had the same self-awareness, self-criticism and willingness to admit mistakes.
It's a matter for sovereign self-governing nations to decide.
The Dutch legalised gay marriage early in 2001, and Canada in 2005. Others, like Germany and Australia, are yet to do so and many Eastern European countries have religious objections.
This is fine, and their business.
[EDIT: unfutz tags]
The reality is that most politicians have sometimes appeared on platforms with people who have said something dodgy, and quite possibly been polite to them, appeared in a photo with them, and so on. You have the chance to express your views, so you express them. That's why I argued in favour of sanctions on Iran on Press TV - since they were willing to broadcast that view (because, I think, they saw them as a lesser evil to military intervention), fine. Every politician knows that, which is why the Conservative campaign was so discreditable.
As they admit. But they'll do it again.
Just back from a climbing trip in Nepal, and standard fare in the tea houses was a Snicker pie, or a Mars bar pie, I avoided both, but...
I face new dangers,tomorrow, I start the NC500 tour of Scotland, can I avoid the battered Mars bar, and what if I come face to face with Malcolm.
Whatever , I like to live dangerously, and on return I hope to be out of the UK until it is all over.
Clinton 41 .. Trump 44
http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/142051907-story
On the City, there aren't many voters at all, but Khan did make an effort for them, whereas I don't remember Zac saying anything much about business, perhaps feeling they were in the bag. Might have missed it though.
Over antisemitism he has some serious explaining to do. To share a platform with one nutcase may be excused as careless, to appoint one to a defence review looks like stupidity.
Utah was never really in doubt tbh tho ;p
I cant remember exactly the law but there was something tightening up the laws on the age of consent that I think would have made a 16year old having sex with a 15 year old a lvery serious offence but they were not bothered because the guidelines to the Attorney General were that they should not prosecute as in that case it would not be in the public interest.
You had better hope that Mary Whitehouse never becomes attorney general I thought when I read about it.
The first was from my union, Unison, asking me to get involved in stopping the local government pension fund investing in infrastructure. I don't give a proverbial as I'm not in the public sector and that Union did nothing when my pension rights were significantly curtailed.
The second one was from my employer telling me not to worry about the deficit in the defined benefit scheme I'm a member of that was mentioned in the newspapers on Sunday.
Conclusions? This zero interest rate policy is now starting to put serious strain on companies and unions don't give a proverbial unless it affects the public sector.
On a refendum note, why didn't the unions use their influence to curb immigration? I mean, that's how they work; by rationing labour supply. Perhaps because the effect would be most drastic on wages in the private sector. Just a thought.
Estimated 2 million in England and Wales in the 1920s. I would guess 10 per cent of about 4.5 million people in Scotland. Enumerated 3.2 million in two Irish censes, north and south, 1926. Let's say somewhere over 5.5 million.
Actually, after all the immigration, it's about 5.7 million today! So scores even.
I cannot see Trump getting past the Electoral College, but even if he gets through he will be hobbled by Congress and Senate so would get frustrated pretty quickly.
I think Hillary will be an excellent President.
The world is divided into victim groups and oppressor groups. Oppressor groups can do no right, victim groups can do no wrong.
To a large chunk of the left Muslims are a victim group subject to oppression from racists and er Israel.
The Jews have therefore become an oppressor group. However thanks to rather unpleasant events in the 1940s others somewhat understandably see them as a victim group.
Result. Not pretty.